The Pickens sentinel. [volume] (Pickens, S.C.) 1871-1903, 1887-07-21
WHY THEY WITHDREW.
THE SECESSION FROM THE SOUTH
CAROLINA DIOCESAN CONVENTION.

|
CAROLINA DIOCESAN CONVENTION.
Review of the Causes of Difference that
Led to Their Withdrawal--The Question
OF Admitting Colored Delegates to tho
| Convention.
CHARLESTON, s. c., July 12.-The
committee appointed by the clerical and
lay delegates who withdrew from the
Diocesan Episcopal Convention in
Charleston last May have completed their
statement of the causes which led to
withdrawal. 1t is signed by ex-Secretary
y. It. Memminger, Edward McCrady,
Jr., w. st. j. Jervey, w. G. Benet, @.
L. r. Drayton, and will make pamph-
lot of about sixty pages. The committee
begin by sketching the history of the
dividing questions during the last twelve
years, and contend that it shows that the
position of the lay delegates with regard
to tho admission of colored clergymen to
the diocesan conventions differs from
that OF many of the clergy, not in prin-
ciple,. but in expediency. In 1886, the
question took the shape of an assertion
OF the right of all the clergymon on the
right OF ali the clergymen on the bishops
list to seats in the convention independ.
cnt of the action of that body and by
virtue of the clergyman's office. The
subject was avoided tho next year, but
came up in the convention last May, not
not as matter of principle only, but as
involving the question OF the admission
OF colored clergymen to the church
councils. The bishop having ruled-not-
wlthstanding the refusal of the conven-
ton to confirm the report of the COM
mlttee on the clergy lst-that the con-
vcntion was duly organized for business,
and having ignored the refusal of the
convention to sustain his ruling, dissi-
dents had no choice but to submit, pro-
test, resort to parliamentary expedients,
or withdraw with dignity. They accord
mgly withdrew from tho convention.
1t Is recognized by the committee,
however, that the point to be determ-
lned Is whether the admission of colored
clergymen to the convention was con-
templated i'll the constitution of the
church. They contend that it was not,
and that this 'is the first attempt in the
history OF tho church to make the church
other than national church-that is O.
church OF race" They believe the seat
ing colored clergymen in the convention
! to be not only unconstitutional, but dan
gcrous, and III this relation recall the
resolution Of Mr.. Prcntiss in 1876, as
sorting the right of exclusion. The res
olutlons of the standing committee on
the Saltus case, i'll 1876, recognizing the
differences OF the races brought together
III the diocese, and the report of the
Newanee Conference, in favor of mis-
Slonary organization, because of the
pecullarlty Of the relations between the
two races.
1t is argued that there is no danger,
Whatever, to any of the social barriers
between the races, If the colOred people
DC taken into the councils and the
churches as equals of the whites, but the
committee are confident that the actual
and practical result would be to force
negro social equality upon the people,
Inc duty and responsibility of the
church IN the Southern States in regard
to coiored people, is fully recognized,
but there Is no call "to take them into
our councils"
La conclusion the committee give their
reasons Tor holding that there was no
legal convention in 1887. They claim
that the election of the standing com
mlttee, and the attempted alteration in,
Iho constitution were "void and of no
elect, even had the legality of the
bishops ruling not otherwise Vitiated it's
proceedings.
The Importance Of congregations rep-
resented by the dissidents, who with
drew from the convention, is shown in.
an unmlstakable way. Those who with
drew represented more than half of ALI
persons connected with the church, and
more than half of all communicates.
lhcy represented, also, parishes which
pay nearly tWo-thirds of the conventions
expenses; more than two-thirds of the
bishops fund, and nearly two-thirds of
the contributions to missions. The COM
mittco say, that in withdrawing from the
convention, they did not withdraw from
the church. 1t is for the laity to de-
tormlnc what their future course shall
BE- They will not impair their connec.
ton with the church by withdrawing
from union with the convention, TheV
can, II they choose, send deputies with
INSTRUCTIONS to abandon the position
which has been taken, and in admitting
Ihc colored element to the church conn,
cllS 'bravc the dangers" from which the
dlSSldents shrink. But, if the laity de-
sire that the right to pass upon the
clergy list shall be abandoned, to..,ov rnnst
choose to represent them other deputies
than those who withdrew from the COZ
YCntlOn Of 1887.
Thirteen Grave Mistakes,